The "we need to provide security" argument and the "strongest tribe" hypothesis

[Ron Humphrey]

Ken's modification to Slaps suggestions,
along with required recognition at a national level exactly what type of resources/capability/institutional organizations need to exist in order to actually make both viable options in international partner and not-so-partners calculations.

[jmm99]

Precision Engagement (what you do and how you do it) include Precision Retaliation and Precision Prevention (both going to why you do it).

I like Bill's Framework - to which, could be added the "Precision" stuff.

The "off the cuff" remark reminded me of my friend's father who had so much active and reserve time in as a Navy SNCO, his service stripes covered most of his left sleeve.

Somewhere in this discussion, I'd like to work in Marc Legrange's concept of looking at violent non-state actor vs violent non-state actor (e.g., Somalia, Sudan) conflicts as less a matter of distributing security than as distributing insecurity. I don't fully understand exactly where he is going (maybe he doesn't either ); but the basic idea seems to be: how do traditional, subsistence tribal groups approach taking sides (or staying neutral) in a situation where the sides are both knuckleheads ?

Maybe his is the product of warped TdM-NGO experience ( ), but it may be a more useful way to look at "failed state" situations than the "Westphalian state in a neat box" approach, where the "need to provide security" is always the paramount concern.

Regards

Mike